Ever notice how atheists are virtually always on the opposite side from God on many issues?

[Subduction Zone]

What I wonder about is how these material beings can assert that they can detect an immaterial but not explain how they do it. They refer to their "spiritual" as an immaterial essence or force or whatever but what they describe is belief, feelings, some animating force, etc. which are all related to the material brain. And they still don't explain how an immaterial esence uses their brains as an instrument to connect to an immaterial God.

They often believe that thought is magic. In other words they deny that it is a chemical event, even though there is very strong evidence that this is the case.

 

[F1fan]

They often believe that thought is magic. In other words they deny that it is a chemical event, even though there is very strong evidence that this is the case.

They often use old references and belief to claim that God is the abstractions that material brains create, and ignore the electro-chemical process. It is funny to explain this to them and they suffer as their God gets squeezed and crushed as the gap they put it in closes. Of course, we evil materialist atheists "just don't get it" What don't we get? Bad religion.

 

[Windwalker]

In debate it is customary to ask for evidence and explanation when personal experiences are used as some example or evidence itself (which isn't evidence until it is shown to be what it is claimed to be).

Experience is a type of evidence in an of itself without further proofs. It is known as anecdotal evidence. It has value. "Although such evidence is not seen as conclusive, researchers may sometimes regard it as an invitation to more rigorous scientific study of the phenomenon in question."

What I seem to be hearing in these demands for evidence, and then a subsequent rejection of personal experience as not evidence, is actually just being dismissive of subjective experience as "scientifically rigorous". Is the claimant making that assertion themselves, or is that a false expectation by the "sceptic" in the debate? I sense it is much more the latter case. Since it's not objective evidence, it's not evidence at all, according to their logic.

My counter is that it is evidence that should be taken as "an invitation to more rigorous study". The experience of one person is evidence. The same patterns of experience of multiple subjects, is more data to create a more objective, possibly testable set of theories. To dismiss it out of hand, is just bias.

It's not as if other members are claiming they had a great experience downhill skiing, it is experiences they had that leads them to believe a supernatural exists and involved itself with them.

So because of this, that people take these experiences and interpret them through pre-scientific frameworks, we should therefore reject and ignore the experiences as not evidence of anything at all, or dismiss them as "merely the brain malfunctioning"?

Naturally this raises more questions, and also it's natural that the claimants can't demonstrate that the experiences they refer to were authentic as they describe and wasn't them imaginating it via what they heard others claim.

I can guarantee you my own experience was not an "imagined experience". It literally happened, and there were others there at the time I immediately reported it to. The evidence it really happened, and it wasn't some false memory of imagination of an experience is the impact it forever has had on my life.

Plus I guarantee you it was not based on what others claim, as I really hadn't heard anyone describe my experience more true to what it was for close to 40 years after the fact of it. When I first described my experience to Christian ministers at that time (at the recommendation of others I talk with them), I was met with blank stares. It was completely outside the wheelhouse of their training and teachings.

It wasn't for many decades later that when I began to be exposed to the words of Buddhists, Hindus and Christian mystics, speaking of Satori and other nondual experiences. Add to this the works of Western researcher who look into these peak state experiences, such as James and Maslow.

So when I hear what you say above and attempt to apply that to myself, needless to say it doesn't fit in the least. While what you say may apply to some, it certainly does not to me at all in that instance. What I am annoyed by is the claim that none of it is valid, because of so many invalid claimants. That's just being lazy, and not actually rational or logical. That's cynicism.

When we don't have adequate evidence for claims we follow other rules, like Occam's Razor: what is the most likely thing that happened.

A rule that cynics like use to hide and justify their dismissiveness behind as well. "I'm just being logical in my dismissiveness of any and all such claims. It's all nothing but fantastical woo woo, or merely brain farts mistaken as reality."

If Jim believes X is true in a debate then he should be able to explain how he used evidence and reason that led him to come to that conclusion. Where it comes to religious beliefs we don't see this being the case, it is a matter of believers adopting what other people around them believe via subtle social influence and pressure.

I keep trying to raise the bar, but I hear you come back to the lowest denominator, which is fundamentalist, mythic-literal belief. Does any of what I have been saying of my own experiences fit at all into those categories in your mind? Do you assume that it's all nothing but that?

This is the dilemma of being capable of understanding concepts but lacking self-awareness and reasoning skill to assess the ideas objectively.

I certainly don't fit into that myself.

Had the crew not turned on the sign I would have forever believed I experienced a UFO. We humans are eager for experiences and we are bad at setting the unknown and mistaken aside without any speculation or assumption.

These things are true, but this does not mean that all experiences of something beyond the ordinary or the mundane are nothing but mistaken assumptions or speculations based upon a desire to want to believe. Some experiences literally blow the roof off of reality and forever change our perpetual realities. Research has been done into these phenomena. Regarding Peak Experience:

The concept was originally developed by Abraham Maslow in 1964,[citation needed] who described peak experiences as "rare, exciting, oceanic, deeply moving, exhilarating, elevating experiences that generate an advanced form of perceiving reality, and are even mystic and magical in their effect upon the experimenter.​

​

I remember one time I was on a bike ride and stopped to look at the sunset which had beautiful colors. I could understand why people see God in that. But then I pondered it. If someone was being beat up and saw that same sunset would their mind go right to thinking a God exists? If someone is busy working on a deadline, will they notice? Of course not, the God exists in a mind that has no other thing going on. There is no God in the sunset, it is an experience of leisure.

You're not too far from seeing a truth here, you might not expect. You are correct that if someone is beat up, or distracted by working on a deadline, they will not see the Beauty that is right there in front of their own eyes. That doesn't disprove that God exists in reality because it is only seen in the quieted mind. That proves absolutely every single thing every Wisdom tradition has always said.

When we quite the discursive, chattering, busy, anxious, worried, distracted mind; when we set aside all the focus of the egoic mind on itself and its concerns; when we relax our grips on our beliefs and thoughts and ideas of what is true and real; when we surrender and "let go"; then, and only then will we see what has been there in front of us and available to us the entire time that we simply were unable to see because we were looking elsewhere, inside of "thought world" as I call it, instead of The World itself, or "real reality".

You seem to think if you just try harder, reason more, dissect more, analyze more, or better, or more precisely, that this somehow will get you to see Truth and experience liberation or freedom from illusion. That is the exact opposite of how it works. It's not through effort, and more effort, but rather as Buddhism teaches, it is through no-effort at all. It is walking through that gateless gate, that windowless window, and seeing simply what IS, without our judgements upon it.

So no, it's not a matter of illusion. It's not a matter of leisure either. It is a matter of Awareness. It is a patter of perception, moving away from the distraction that our overly active minds place in front of our awareness that blinds us to what IS. That sunset that is seen and not seen, but is always there.

You answered it yourself, Hindus don't experience Jesus like Christians. Christians don't experience Hindu gods. That was my point.

You missed my point. Yes they do experience Spirit or the Divine exactly the same as Christians do. They just experiences it with the face of Jesus, as opposed to the face of Krishna. It's the same type of experience, the same experience in fact, just translated through different worlds and symbols.

Take for instance drinking water. The American says of that same substance, "water". The Turk, "su". The Mexican "agua". Would you argue they aren't all drinking water because they know it by another name?

That humans have human experiences is not what I was talking about. Obviously humans will adopt ideas from their social experience and make them real in their minds.

So you just don't like the language differences? Why doesn't everyone speak science instead of religion to describe mystical experiences? Why doesn't everyone just say "water", like us English-speaking Americans do?

I think your real issue is, and one I am more that sympathetic about, is that you don't like it that there are people who have not adopted the views and the language of Modernity, and are still living and seeing the world through premodern, traditionalist and mythic frameworks. I don't really think it is religiousness and spirituality is that is the problem here as you seem to be saying. I see it as much more nuanced and complex than simply all that.

 

[ChieftheCef]

There's a reason for that, but they cannot understand it due to spiritual blindness. It's not necessarily their fault. God doesn't permit everyone to believe in him - yet. In the end, ALL will believe and follow Jesus.

That's a hefty contradiction

 

[Windwalker]

The most likely answer is that she has heard of speaking in tongues, which is little more than giberish, and her medical condition affected her brain functioning.

You see, this is the dismissiveness I was talking about. I already said she did not have exposure to it, and yet you dismissed that. Then you speculate that her medical condition affected her brain functioning. How is this any different in reasoning than the Christian who imposes his mythic framework on things as being purely speculative and unsupportable? Because it has a "sciencey" framework, a "brain dysfunction"?

I already explained what I see it as, which is a common religious experience that humans can have, that has nothing whatsoever to do with brain dysfunctions nore necessarily learned patterned behaviors. I showed how you find this in many religions, and even those that predate Christianity. How do you explain those, and why is it you find your explanation more well supported than mine?

I met some guys back in the late 80's who used rhythmic drumming to guide others into mystical experiences. These guys were part of Stan Groff's seminars on rebirthing, which was an interesting experience. I did it, and it did nothing for me. The drumming was interesting, and I can see where it is very moving in some way. It's easy to fall into a sort of light trance listening to drumming. This is a global thing for humans, and in music and rituals.

No disagreement.

Our brains are electro-chemical organs and they do some weird things when influenced in various ways. Whether drugs, or sounds, or feelings, or whatever we enjoy finding out what can happen to our conscious awareness. Can people have experiences without ever using the word "god"? You bet.

I already had said this, and said it again above just now. So then how is it you dismissed what I said about that woman's experience of non-exposure to it, as a learned, "brain problem"?

Do you think I am suggesting that glossilia is proof of a supernatural being??

I have learned to follow evidence. I have learned not to listen to claimants in a bubble, and that means I can't just listen to 10 believers claiming they experienced a god and not also listen to those who say they behaved the same way and didn't experience a God.

Ditto. I always place these things in a large context or container, as I had explained previously and again here.

When witnesses disagree we can look at where any bias might exist, and that is those who claim extraordinary things and can't explain the extraordinary is real. The social sciences explain how many people can end up sincerely believing false ideas.

Are they really false ideas, or just a different language to describe a real phenomenon? Just because someone says its "agua", does not mean it isn't really water.

And why not? If a person is so naive and still has much to learn about life able to actually touch God's face and not walk away with some elevated wisdom suggests a product of being naive, and wanting a shortcut.

Let's come back to peak experiences, which is what my experience was. I certainly walked away with some elevated insight (not wisdom, as wisdom is learned through age and experience). Was I a naive youth? Of course. Was it the product of my naivety? No. Was it a product of wanting a shortcut? No. It simply happened without seeking it, without trying to experience anything at all. Like getting hit by a bolt of lightening our a clear blue sky.

However, did I after the fact want to simply re-experience that without having to do the hard work of working on myself to grow and mature into that? You bet! That was a bit of the double-edged sword to it. It showed me what was possible, the highest state of my being possible, the Enlightened state, but to "fall back to earth" was no small thing.

Once you know what is possible, you want to return with everything in your being, and walking through the landmines of your own life to get there is a price to be paid. Most people don't want to face the devil in themselves. They find some comfortable spot and stay there their whole lives. Or they try to escape themselves through drugs and alcohol, or their egos, or the work, or any other distractions.

So because of the instantaneous nature of what that was for me, as a natural human being wanting to avoid that 'devil' on the path to Home, or Freedom, or Awakening, or Enlightenment, or "God", I just wanted it to happen spontaneously again. Was that navitey? Yes. But understandable.

But because of the magnitude and depth of what life can be in that condition, the desire to return Home has been insatiable. Like the Buddha said, "Seek enlightenment like someone whose hair is on fire seeks the river". You become willing to face that dark scary Devil you fear for the goal of that River.

We see quite a few members on RF who make many fantastic claims, and also show very shallow personality triats.

That doesn't necessarily mean they didn't have an authentic peak experience though. The idea of "instant Buddha", is itself naivety. I wanted that myself for many years, following my own authentic experience.

It is common for people to imagine Enlightenment to mean instantly everything is fixed. That's a myth. And it seems you seem to be imaging that common myth as well. I certainly understand that, as I had that idea myself.

I have noted that the shallowness is a liability to their credibility, and they don't seem to understand it

Probably not, as a state experience is different from a growth experience. That is a powerful distinction to be made. State experiences are temporary and not earned. Growth experiences are earned and relatively stable and permanent.

So, I try to cut them some slack, as I was shallow and naive still following my authentic peak experience. I had to grow up yet, even though I had an awakening experience.

yet the double, triple, quadriple down on their claims as if the repetition makes their dogma true. There is a correlation between wisdom and character. The naive will seem to be more likely to suffer Duning-Kruger than the wise. The naive will assume a blimp is an extraterrestrial craft.

The mistake they make, assuming they had an authentic experience, is assuming the language they use to describe it is fixed. They fuse the meaning of the symbol, with the meaning itself. They can through some maturity discover they can describe their transcendent, spiritual experiences with other terms as well, rather than just the language they inherited or adopted. That has been my own personal journey and realization.

 

[F1fan]

You see, this is the dismissiveness I was talking about. I already said she did not have exposure to it, and yet you dismissed that. Then you speculate that her medical condition affected her brain functioning. How is this any different in reasoning than the Christian who imposes his mythic framework on things as being purely speculative and unsupportable? Because it has a "sciencey" framework, a "brain dysfunction"?

There are more likely explanations. I defer to more likely explanations rather than the beliefs people hold that lack evidence. If your niece walked up to you and showed you the dollar she found under her pillow that must have been left by the Tooth Fairy for a tooth that fell out. Would you believe her at face value? Or would you dismiss what she believes because you know there is a more likely explanation?

Speaking in tongues doesn’t strike me as a mysterious phenomenon, rather there is a more plausible explanation. That we don’t see Christians speaking in tongues outside of sects that do it suggests it is learned behavior. I’m sorry you don’t like this approach but that is where reasoning leads.

 

[Windwalker]

There are more likely explanations.

Than the one I offered? What is that? Her brain was broken? That is what you suggested, that and she was imitating others, which I said she was not. It was spontaneous and unexpected on her part, and she was confused by it. She made no claims whatsoever of attributing it to anything at all. I pretty much communicated that to you, yet you somehow dismiss all of that out of hand here? Explain that to me.

I defer to more likely explanations rather than the beliefs people hold that lack evidence.

She offered no beliefs about it whatsoever, yet you are claiming she did? Based upon what?

If your niece walked up to you and showed you the dollar she found under her pillow that must have been left by the Tooth Fairy for a tooth that fell out. Would you believe her at face value? Or would you dismiss what she believes because you know there is a more likely explanation?

Do you think what I was saying was attributing supernatural causes to it? I was very clear in my post about that. Didn't you read it? Or are you just defaulting to your experience with fundamentalists and not looking at the information I am sharing?

Speaking in tongues doesn’t strike me as a mysterious phenomenon, rather there is a more plausible explanation.

What about my explanations? Do you believing I am attributing it to spiritual entities?

That we don’t see Christians speaking in tongues outside of sects that do it suggests it is learned behavior.

You're not reading my posts! I said three times already we DO find them outside of Christian sects! The Zulu's of Africa practicie it. Plato mentioned it 400 BCE. Voodoo cults practice it. And so on. I mentioned all of this already.

I’m sorry you don’t like this approach but that is where reasoning leads.

I don't like your approach of not reading what I'm posting. You're slipping.

 

[Ostronomos]

That doesn't address his comment, which was, "What are these evils of atheism? What constitutes evil, to you?"

And you're wrong. Faith is blind belief, like your religion.


Wrong again. Here you are giving homage to reason, which you eschew even while claiming to be its sole possessor in this discussion, and demeaning faith as a basis for belief, which you embrace.

Wrong again. All science is about physical reality (nature), which is all there is as far as we know.

And yet another expression of "I see further than you" with nothing to back it up. The ignorant atheist has much to learn from a spiritual genius like you, right? Tell me some of your discovered spiritual truths using your special ways of knowing, truths that elude the ignorant atheist. What have you seen, and how has that information made your life better than my benighted existence?

Your concern - your empathy - is certainly appreciated:

View attachment 80599

How this autobiographical fact will be received will be a testament to my audience's ability to see the truth.

I discovered a way to relax my brain and body in a way that is unique to me and me alone.

It is in this state that reality is "converted" from objective materialism to subjective metaphysical. The external world in other words is affected by my internal state and reality is "inverted" or "converted". It is flipped.

So instead of mind receiving reality in a passive powerless way, reality is influenced by mind in an active powerful way. Even the television is influenced by thought. Demonic forces are also perceived by what I call the 6th sense. In which case I am forced to respond accordingly, whether through Biblical verses or what have you.

It really lends credence to the reality self-simulation principle (a paper that everyone should read).

 

[Ostronomos]

Here is an excerpt of the Reality Self-Simulation Principle By Langan:

here X = reality, the simulation is a reality-simulation. Where the processor
is artificial - e.g., a mechanical or electronic construct - the reality simulation is
artificial; where the processor is natural (involving no artificial construct), the
reality simulation is natural, and may be considered a part of nature or reality itself.
If it can be considered a simulation at all, it is a self-simulation of, by, and for nature
itself.
Real simulations of reality exist in reality, and in principle may be “nested” in
simulations of simulations … of simulations. Thus, we have the following diagram:

(1) Ultimate Reality  [nested subrealities]  (2) source system (to be
simulated)  (3) host system with model of source system  (4) displayed target
system

(...)

Ultimate (true, base-level) reality refers to a level of reality that is perfectly self-
contained; it must conform to the CTMU Metaformal System, which distributes a
synetic “intelligibility property” or universal syntax of identification – an instance-
free, semantically unbound universal distributed form or UDF supporting and
constraining all possible recognizable input - over its localized (semantically bound)
instances within a universal syndiffeonic identity, thus providing itself with the
internal coherence that allows bound states to be coherently assembled in the
building of artificial processors. (Although every reality-simulation is in a sense
“ultimate reality simulating itself”, its displayed output is extensional and localized
to particular locations or regions within a display medium which may, if artificial,
be localized within ultimate reality and thus unable to display ultimate reality in its
entirety.
-CHRISTOPHER LANGAN 471

 

[DNB]

To a mythological realm?
What actual evidence is there for this mythology?

You keep asking, and keep getting a reply - where does your concern actually lie?

 

[DNB]

In what way do you differ from the taxonomic definition of "ape?"

You have no valid evidence of this. It's a mere claim.

How are scientists myopic? You claim goddidit, but offer no evidence.
If there were evidence it would be accepted by scientists.

Design, predictability, contingency, something did not come from nothing, a rock and a bird did not come from the same source of matter, cycles and systems in nature, constant laws of physics and science, etc...
Anthropology - man, always searching for the transcendent, and emulating a holy concept and principle.

You atheists take an extreme amount for granted.

 

[DNB]

How does possessing an imagination negate biological realities?

Moral inclinations, spiritual meditations and aspirations, i.e. concepts that transcend the secular, show that we are derived from a non-physical entity, or that we have that dimension as part of our constitution.
This propensity, that belongs to every man on the planet, and has been evidenced ever since human history began, was not derived from stardust and protoplasm. No other creature on earth has this capability - to conceive of, revere or worship, God.

 

[DNB]

Is pointing out the contradictions in your posts pedantic? I would say not.

In post #264 you said:
"they eat, sleep, defecate, and procreate, and that's it!"

But then in post #377 you contradicted your own assertion:
"yes they experience pleasure and pain, fear and comfort, and other emotions."

You're either simple, or pedantic.

 

[DNB]

If the beasts had language, you'd see the equivalent of those things in them.

How am I to reply to this - It's bad enough that you are utterly blind to the evidences of God on this planet, but what a shame how equally oblivious that you are to the comprehension and capabilities of non humans???
They eat, sleep, procreate, defecate, and sniff people in inappropriate areas, and that's their full functionality and potential.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Design, predictability, contingency, something did not come from nothing, a rock and a bird did not come from the same source of matter, cycles and systems in nature, constant laws of physics and science, etc...
Anthropology - man, always searching for the transcendent, and emulating a holy concept and principle.

You atheists take an extreme amount for granted.

What "design"? As to the rest why do you think that any of that points towards the necessity of a god or gods? I think that you are the one that is taking quite a bit for granted. You cannot supply any rational reasons or evidence for a god, especially your rather primitive and failed god so atheists simply lack a belief. That is by far more reasonable than an irrational belief in a self contradictory deity.

 

[Secret Chief]

You're either simple, or pedantic.

As usual, dodged.

You're like a stuck record, you've just done it again in post #494 above, ("They eat, sleep, procreate, defecate, and sniff people in inappropriate areas, and that's their full functionality and potential.") but in post #377 you said "yes they experience pleasure and pain, fear and comfort, and other emotions."

Make your mind up, which is it - a defaecating machine OR a higher order sentient being?

 

[Father Heathen]

Moral inclinations, spiritual meditations and aspirations, i.e. concepts that transcend the secular, show that we are derived from a non-physical entity, or that we have that dimension as part of our constitution.
This propensity, that belongs to every man on the planet, and has been evidenced ever since human history began, was not derived from stardust and protoplasm. No other creature on earth has this capability - to conceive of, revere or worship, God.

How do you know such magic couldn't happen under theistic evolution?

Theistic evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[F1fan]

Than the one I offered? What is that? Her brain was broken? That is what you suggested, that and she was imitating others, which I said she was not. It was spontaneous and unexpected on her part, and she was confused by it. She made no claims whatsoever of attributing it to anything at all. I pretty much communicated that to you, yet you somehow dismiss all of that out of hand here? Explain that to me.

Well mental health issues are known to be real. Magic isn't. A person being exposed to a religious experience is a better explanation of why they have a similar one than them having a magical and intuitive experience. I don't know the person you are referring to, but I know people similar to what you explain and I will seek more likely explanation than those that lack evidence. Let's note that believers in religious experiences have a motive to tell themselves and others that what they experiences was authentic as believed, that being that they somehow were involved with a God, or divine. Look at what a very confident and defiant Christian is claiming on this thread, much of it that opposes science and reason, yet even you are challenging his claims.

She offered no beliefs about it whatsoever, yet you are claiming she did? Based upon what?

I have reason to doubt any claims of religious experiences that are not acknowledged as being rooted in natural mental states. Why should I treat her situation differently than the many other religious people who made similar claims?

Do you think what I was saying was attributing supernatural causes to it? I was very clear in my post about that. Didn't you read it? Or are you just defaulting to your experience with fundamentalists and not looking at the information I am sharing?

I have been debating religious folks since 1996 and I recognize certain little "foot in the door" statements. I notice morecareful posting by believers in that they are more vague but clearly implying certain things covertly. If you weren't implying or suggesting a supernatural cause what is your explanation? A person mysteriously starts speaking in tongues and claims to have never been exposed to this religious ritual/behavior, what would explain this naturally that is different than what I suspect is the reason?

What about my explanations? Do you believing I am attributing it to spiritual entities?

I didn't see you offer any explanation. All I have said is that it's more likely a natural explanation, that she was exposed to this behavior at some point in life. Or she spoke jibberish and others mistook it as speaking in tongues. I lack all the info, so you tell me what you think happened that isn't supernatural.

You're not reading my posts! I said three times already we DO find them outside of Christian sects! The Zulu's of Africa practicie it. Plato mentioned it 400 BCE. Voodoo cults practice it. And so on. I mentioned all of this already.

I said we don't see speaking in tongues in other Christian sects. Only pentecostals do. What makes them onto something that the rest don't get?

There is a lot of jibberish that is part of rituals. Heck, even the band Sigur Ros sings nonsense lyrics. As does Cockteau Twins's Elizabeth Frasier.

I don't like your approach of not reading what I'm posting. You're slipping.

Am I wrong that you oppose what I'm saying? I defer to more plausible explanations about why a woman might speak in what sounds like tongues, and you think I'm incorrect somehow. If you have more evidence and a more rational explanation then offer it in unamniguous sentences.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There you have it, the irrefutable evidence: opposable thumbs.
Nothing else to prove the disparity in ontology that exists between humans and apes, or any other non human on the planet?
No, we're related simply because we share the same skeletal hand structure, or that this is a vestige of our previous constitution.

You don't see any differences between humans and all other creatures that necessitate the fact that we are not related?
Have you ever heard of a god-fearing monkey, a Buddhist orangutan, a Zoroastrian donkey, an eagle priest or shaman?
How about a dog with a crucifix around its neck, or a fish with a burka on its head?

I've seen a chimp using sign language to communicate with humans.
Sounds like you need to get out more and learn more about the rest of the animal kingdom that we're demonstrably related to.

 

[F1fan]

How this autobiographical fact will be received will be a testament to my audience's ability to see the truth.

I discovered a way to relax my brain and body in a way that is unique to me and me alone.

No doubt you high five yourself.

It is in this state that reality is "converted" from objective materialism to subjective metaphysical.

So you have succeded in going from reality to fantasy. It's OK as long as you understand the difference.

The external world in other words is affected by my internal state and reality is "inverted" or "converted". It is flipped.

But it is only in your mind that this happens, not that the external reality actually changes.

So instead of mind receiving reality in a passive powerless way,

Do you mean the brain receiving sensory data, like vision, smells? Close your eyes, plug your nose.

reality is influenced by mind in an active powerful way.

The three monkeys comes to mind. Of course what they don't see doesn't really change. If you stand on railroad tracks and a train is coming, closing your eyes won't change that the train is going to hit you. Splat.

Even the television is influenced by thought.

Remotes are powerful tools.

Demonic forces are also perceived by what I call the 6th sense. In which case I am forced to respond accordingly, whether through Biblical verses or what have you.

Could be mental illness. Seek professional help.

It really lends credence to the reality self-simulation principle (a paper that everyone should read).

How is it useful? Notice how many live full lives without this idea being read about.